Featured Stories

From a strict policy perspective, this formulation is, of course, absurd. As Clinton, McCain, and Obama will all tell you, the differences between Clinton and Obama pale in comparison to those between Clinton and McCain. Really, it isn't even close. Virtually every single substantive issue that Clinton and Obama support, McCain does not, and vice-versa. McCain offers huge corporate tax breaks, Clinton and Obama do not. Clinton and Obama want to make sure that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, McCain does not. McCain has even voted to ban funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest. On the Iraq war, McCain will not hasten a pullout. Clinton and Obama will. Clinton and Obama have health-care proposals whose goal is Universal care, McCain does not. And on and on.

So why the cognitive dissonance? Well, most of the people who employ the "Hillary or McCain" retort do so for far less sensible reasons than actual policy distinctions.

The long-delayed supplemental war funding measure was delayed again in Congress last week, this time by an internal struggle within the Democratic caucus. Moderate and conservative Democrats, known as Blue Dogs, objected to the leadership's plan to load up the bill with billions in extra spending items. The Blue Dogs are upset with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) plan to include spending for unemployment benefit extensions and a new entitlement for troop education, a new GI Bill, in the bill. They fear a backlash against the increased spending and the use of the supplemental as a vehicle to score electoral points in their districts, which are conservative in nature. Republicans also object to the supplemental on procedural grounds. Democrats have by-passed the appropriations committee in drafting the legislation and are not allowing minority Republicans to offer proposals on the measure. Republicans have retaliated by forcing procedural votes in protest.

Democrats took control of the House in 2006 partly on the strength of wins in Republican leaning districts. There are thirty-four Democrats serving in the House from such districts, and their re-election in the fall is critical to Democrats hopes of keeping control of the chamber. Accordingly, the Blue Dogs' concerns are being given great weight by the speaker. "Their concerns are very legitimate," Pelosi said, "They must be addressed." Pelosi also must deal with the anti-war liberal members of her caucus, however, and they are not likely to support the war funding bill without inducements like the unemployment benefits. It makes for a perilous balancing act for the Speaker, one that she lost to the White House's veto in last year's supplemental war funding battle.

Calling St. Paul. Come in, St. Paul. It seems there may be some trouble brewing for this summer's GOP convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. You see, another Paul is looming large on the horizon, threatening to stir up mischief at the August coronation of John, the would-be Baptist of that new and improved sect of Republicanism--Bush-Lite, for lack of a better term. As Paul's supporters learned from Guy Fawkes, surprise is the name of the game.

From The LA Times:

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September.

Yes, he was dissed by Fox News, taunted by his rivals, scorned in the press, but Ron Paul is not ready to stop preaching the gospel to his followers. In fact, the proselytizing continues apace, and St. Paul's stage is set to provide the Texas Congressman with ample microphone time.

Update: 3 more Supers go to Obama today. See end of story for details. 6pm:Make that 4.

As my friend, David Knowles, noted yesterday, Barack Obama has now taken the Superdelegate lead from Hillary Clinton for the first time in this campaign. After taking the lead, more and more supes began to fall Obama's way. Even before Tuesday, the delegate math had stopped adding up for Hillary.

The Political Machine also reports that Rasmussen has stopped polling the Democratic Primary race, Terry McAuliffe has signaled that the end is near, and negotiations for a VP slot are already under way.

In the face of such inevitability, the question is now, not if, but when Hillary Clinton Conventional wisdom varies a lot on this, from just after the Kentucky primary on May 20, to June 3, the date of the last primary, with some convinced she'll still go to the convention. I suggest a different date. If not today, then tomorrow or Monday. She can skip right over the defeat and go right to accepting that Vice Presidency, having ended on the high note of a victory in Indiana.

The alternative is to watch a flood of Supers go to Obama, and possibly even lose in West Virginia and Kentucky. She can be Rocky Balboa from the first film, or William Wallace's vanquished Braveheart.

Whatever happens, I want to see Democrats behaving with grace and good sportsmanship toward Hillary and her supporters. Obama himself has struck the right chord, as did Senator Claire McCaskill on Thursday's conference call, but the same cannot be said for Ted Kennedy. Worse than that, though, was this display of disrespect on CNN Tuesday night, which I have just now seen for myself.

Arianna Huffington has been vindicated. Last week on her site, she recounted how--at a Hollywood dinner party at the home of Candice Bergen--John McCain and his wife Cindy boasted that they hadn't voted for George W. Bush back in 2000.

McCain denied Arianna's account via a spokesperson, who said, "consider the source." Well, The New York Times and The Washington Post went out and found a couple of sources of their own--People who were also sitting near the McCains, and heard the remarks.

From the Post:

In separate phone interviews, Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff--both of whom starred in the television political drama "The West Wing"--said the senator made the remarks after he spoke at length about his reservations about Bush becoming president.

Now that is rich. The McCains rubbing elbows with the Hollywood elite, and holding forth on their dislike of Bush. There's a little "red-meat" for conservatives to chew on.

I guess we should all consider the source whenever McCain fires up the Straight-Talk Express.

George Stephanopoulos reports (via RealClearPolitics):

"I think it's very much a possibility and there are others around Sen. Clinton, other top Democrats who think the strongest ticket would be a joint ticket," George Stephanopolous, ABC News' chief Washington correspondent, said Monday on "Good Morning America."

The dream team ticket was discussed earlier this year, but fell by the wayside as both sides ramped up the rhetoric against each other, intensifying their battle for the Democratic nomination.

The talk has revived as Clinton now looks like an ultra-long shot for the presidential nomination, and her disappointed supporters are threatening to vote for presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., instead of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

"There are intermediaries discussing this very scenario," Stephanopoulos said on "GMA".

Absolutely. I expect this to be the natural outcome of this primary (also see Tommy's piece). At this point Hillary is doing enough damage, she can demand it if she wants it. And Obama has proven that he is extremely weak where Hillary is strong. He must be loathe to admit it, but he needs her.

One question is whether she is demanding that he pay her debt off. That could be a grating thing to do, and my initial response would be to go pound sand. But again, if she wants to be veep, she could probably get that spot and her debts paid off.

If this comes off, I hope McCain enjoyed his little holiday, because the fun time is over. We will now witness the power of this fully armed and operational battle stat... Oops wrong movie. Anyway, Obama and Clinton will come together, their supporters will come together, and they will destroy him with full on attacks and endless sniping. Age, ties to Bush, Iraq, connections to lobbyists, Keating five, temper and temperament, it's all out there and waiting. And it's going to be ugly.

Oh and one other stipulation that Obama should demand: Bill Clinton must NOT be a part of the package.

After months of advising his listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton in open Democratic primaries, ultra-conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is changing his tune by urging Democratic superdelegates to force the issue and make Barack Obama their nominee. From CNN:

"I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees," Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. "I now urge the Democrat superdelegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama."

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working-class people," Limbaugh said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

But Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and Obama supporter, disagreed, saying the Democratic Party has "the best coalition to go out and talk to people across racial lines, which are the unions."

Limbaugh's plan to interfere in the Democratic Primary process, dubbed "Operation Chaos," was given legitimacy yesterday when Obama supporter John Kerry attributed Hillary Clinton's victory in Indiana to the gabber's tactic. What is behind this reversal? Is Rush being sincere? Is he mad at Bill Clinton for "hitting on" his "date?" Or is it all some kind of triple-reverse psychology?

For a little while there, it looked like Hillary Clinton had a shot at mounting a comeback. But on Tuesday, that pesky math caught up with her. There's simply not enough time, or delegates, remaining for her to pull it out. Barack Obama has won. Such is the prognosis from all of those but the most hardened loyalists. Here then, a compendium of obituaries for Hillary's '08 bid for the presidency.

First, a few editorials from today's papers:

The Seattle Times gives us "Clinton's end: time to yield and unify," that conculdes:

Clinton's campaign is over. She is perhaps the last to know.

Face Off is back! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views. Last week's edition took on who's to blame for the ever-climbing cost of gas.

Today the topic is Obama's Rev. Wright issue. Is he past it?

Check out today's posts:


Tommy Christopher writes:

This Democratic Presidential campaign has featured an unprecedented level of magma-hot coverage, most of it focused on tangential issues like gaffes, fluff, smears, pandering photo ops, and manufactured "scandals." Based on media coverage, the Reverend Wright affair is the granddaddy of them all.

Based on several factors, most decisively and recently Tuesday's Democratic Primary results, more and more voters are rejecting these less-than-relevant issues in favor of substance. Smart is back.

Continue reading Obama Over the Wright Hump

------------------------------


Mark Impomeni writes:

Obama's sudden turnaround on Wright, designed to put the issue behind him, actually raises more questions about Obama's relationship to the fiery pastor and about Obama's judgment in remaining as a member of his church for so long.

Continue reading Obama's Answers Create More Wright Questions

Be afraid, John McCain. Be very afraid.

I'm going to do a Joe Namath here and guarantee victory in November for President Obama and Vice President Clinton. In the past several days, every single regular voter that I've talked to has said that such a ticket is a guaranteed winner, and I'm inclined to agree. The hardest part of this election, some would argue, will be engineering that ticket. I disagree.

I wrote a piece back in March, or as it's known in campaign circles, The Paleolithic Era, making the case for a dream ticket. Check it out if you can, much of the analysis still holds true. One key, and discouraging, difference:

Jonathan Alter last night on Countdown floated the notion that the 32% of Hillary supporters who promise to flip to McCain will come to their senses by November, but he didn't address McCain's strong appeal to women voters. 32% of Hillary supporters is a large bloc, certainly large enough to swing the general election. Barack would be a fool to risk that. Conversely, Obama's mainly young supporters are less likely to actually stick with McCain, who does poorly with that demo.

Exit polls last night showed that now, only 45% of Hillary voters would support an Obama-led ticket, as opposed to 70% of Obama voters who would have backed a Hillary nod. That's okay, I have the answer to that problem. If the Democrats are smart, and I know there's precious little evidence of that lately, they will...Updates: Comments from both campaigns at the end of the story.